A little over four years ago, BPA was linked to a number of medical conditions including diabetes, asthma, and cancer among others. The chemical was commercially introduced in 1957, and was used in a wide range of products including food containers and bottles. Due to the backlash over BPA-related health risks, many manufacturers stopped using the chemical in their products.

In response, companies that offered plastic products containing BPA switched to Bisphenol S (BPS). BPA and BPS are very similar structurally, making the latter a good “drop-in replacement” for the former.

Researchers at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston are now reporting that widespread human exposure to BPS was confirmed in 2012 during the analysis of urine samples taken in the U.S., Japan, and China. The research study found that BPS disrupts cellular responses to the hormone estrogen, changing the pattern of cell growth -- even low levels of BPS exposure were enough to interfere with hormones.

"Our studies show that BPS is active at femtomolar to picomolar concentrations just like endogenous hormones -- that's in the range of parts per trillion to quadrillion," said UTMB professor Cheryl Watson, senior author of a paper on the study now online in the advance publications section of Environmental Health Perspectives. "Those are levels likely to be produced by BPS leaching from containers into their contents."

The backlash against BPA was fast and furious, but it may take some more time (and additional studies) to determine if BPS will encounter the same fate.

quote: Ok, so the other things... you might have some kind of point with. This however, sir, is a lie.

Not a lie, and speaking in absolutes implies that you have some kind of definitive proof to back up what you say.

quote: Do you also believe alcohol (that would be ethanol by the way) isn't bad for you?

You think it is? lol

quote: Sugar is classified as a poison by its hepatic process. It's converted into acetaldehyde in your liver, and it's not converted into glycogen like glucose is.

Ok let's not delve into the fantasy world of doctors who get their degrees Fedex'd to them by some outfit in russia. No legitimate medical or scientific body classifies sugar as a poison. The "alternative medicine" nutjobs who think any food that comes in a package is 'toxic' are the ones pushing that nonsense.

quote: Obesity epidemic is due almost exclusively to sugar... as is heart disease

Unsubstantiated claim; no REAL doctor is going to bet their license on the notion that sugar is the root of all evils...but the people who want you to buy alternative sweeteners like stevia or splenda have no problem paying off some quack to make statements like this.

quote: So, in summary.... you're wrong on every possible level here.

You're obviously new here otherwise you'd know that I'm never wrong.

quote: Fiber counteracts almost all the fructose load in fruit when eaten as part of a balanced diet.

In a time when people were eating an almost "all natural" diet they were also living to ripe old ages of 30, maybe 45.

quote: But if you're consuming 600 calories a day worth of fructose and eating less than 100g of fiber... you're poisoning your body, plain and simple.

Assuming a 2,000 calorie diet getting 25% of your caloric intake from sugar would certainly not be the most optimal for health since the calories lack nutrients; but that is not making a your "sugar is poison" case for you. All that you said could have been condensed into one sentence: "Sugar is unhealthy if it's the primary component in your diet, however as part of a balanced diet it is fine."